Uncaused cause=Pantheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. What I said was unclear. I change the definition of Pantheism to make sure that it include everything. Now I am in favor of this clear argument:

God being A.
Cause of causes being B.
Pantheism being C.

Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: B is C
Conclusion: Therefore A is C

I will think of a proof for the second premise.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wesrock:
40.png
STT:
How do you define illusion?
I wouldn’t use it as a metaphysical term. Conventionally, it applies to things that are experienced that don’t represent an actual state of affairs, or more generally, when one’s perceptions do not match actual reality. That said, an illusion in this case is not the same thing as non-being, only a case of a person’s real mental experience not being the same as the external reality causes his senses to react.
How do you distinguish reality from illusion?
Now that’s the age old question. How do we know we’re not just a bodiless spirit being given perceptions by a demon? I could easily go down the role of solipsism and deny everything except myself. We generally trust that our senses are caused by an external world and convey real truths about the external world to our perceptual experience (this doesn’t mean we see everything in its totality). We can improve upon our senses through technological means, confer with others, etc…
40.png
Wesrock:
40.png
STT:
What reality? How do you define reality?
Something that has being. That exists. It is other than non-being.
What do you mean with being?
As indicated next in the sentence, something that exists. Something that can be described by the verb “to be.” The opposite of non-being. It is perhaps the most basic concept we have. All of our terms are formulated around the verb “to be”. We have a very difficult time using langague to describe “non-being” for that precise reason. Being is a quality that we generally grasp a priori. If you can’t grasp what it means “to be”, we may have other issues…
 
40.png
Wesrock:
40.png
STT:
So God cannot answer the question of what I am going to do?
If it brings about a contradictory state of affairs, no. There is no such thing as a capacity to do that.
Interesting, I thought that God’s foreknowledge is real and God has the power to reveal it. The examples of God revealing His foreknowledge is tremendous in scripture.
I said if it’s revealed in a way which brings about a contradictory state of affairs.
 
I change the definition of Pantheism to make sure that it include everything.
I don’t even know where to begin with this.

Is you argument that all things are God? Or that all non-God things are caused by God? That all non-God things being caused by God is equivalent to those things being parts of God?

What’s going on here?
 
Last edited:
I will make it easier for you, because your argument is still incoherent.

Now the definition of Pantheism is:
Everything is God

Apparently you don’t realise it, but this is the actual conclusion you’re trying to prove. So you have two terms ready for you, everything being the minor term, and God being the major term. All you need to do is posit a middle term which connects the two extremes in the conclusion. Or perhaps come up with even more terms to form a series of demonstrative arguments (compound syllogism) which eventually leads to the conclusion:

Everything is God
 
Last edited:
40.png
STT:
How do you distinguish reality from illusion?
Now that’s the age old question. How do we know we’re not just a bodiless spirit being given perceptions by a demon? I could easily go down the role of solipsism and deny everything except myself. We generally trust that our senses are caused by an external world and convey real truths about the external world to our perceptual experience (this doesn’t mean we see everything in its totality). We can improve upon our senses through technological means, confer with others, etc…
The only thing that you could argue in favor of it is that there is an experience. Things might be mere illusion, mere experience. There could be no experiencer.

Back to our discussion: Can we divide things into real (being) and illusion (not being)?
40.png
STT:
What do you mean with being?
As indicated next in the sentence, something that exists. Something that can be described by the verb “to be.” The opposite of non-being. It is perhaps the most basic concept we have. All of our terms are formulated around the verb “to be”. We have a very difficult time using langague to describe “non-being” for that precise reason. Being is a quality that we generally grasp a priori. If you can’t grasp what it means “to be”, we may have other issues…
Something that exist? Does illusion exist in your opinion?
 
Back to our discussion: Can we divide things into real (being) and illusion (not being)?
An illusion is not the same as non-being. An illusion has reality insofar as it is a real mental experience.
40.png
Wesrock:
40.png
STT:
What do you mean with being?
As indicated next in the sentence, something that exists. Something that can be described by the verb “to be.” The opposite of non-being. It is perhaps the most basic concept we have. All of our terms are formulated around the verb “to be”. We have a very difficult time using langague to describe “non-being” for that precise reason. Being is a quality that we generally grasp a priori. If you can’t grasp what it means “to be”, we may have other issues…
Something that exist? Does illusion exist in your opinion?
Yes, as a mental state. There is a real experience even if it doesn’t accurately reflect the external reality. If it was non-being, there wouldn’t have been an experience of an illusion at all.
 
40.png
STT:
I change the definition of Pantheism to make sure that it include everything.
I don’t even know where to begin with this.
Let’s start from this: Things can be divided into two cathegories, (1) Real (being) and (2) Illusion (non being). Is that a good start?
Is you argument that all things are God? Or that all non-God things are caused by God? That all non-God things being caused by God is equivalent to those things being parts of God?

What’s going on here?
I am arguing that source of all cause is God according to your system of belief. Things/beings therefore cannot be source of any cause if they are separate from God otherwise we are dealing with Pantheism.
 
Yes, I agree that illusion can be experienced and is a mental construct. I can close my eyes and create images. Illusion is however not a being. We have to distinguish between illusion and me. Shouldn’t we?
 
To do opposite of what God revealed according to His foreknowledge.
 
40.png
Wesrock:
40.png
STT:
I change the definition of Pantheism to make sure that it include everything.
I don’t even know where to begin with this.
Let’s start from this: Things can be divided into two cathegories, (1) Real (being) and (2) Illusion (non being). Is that a good start?
No. It’s not. An illusion is not non-being, for one. And if there is a thing it has being.
40.png
Wesrock:
Is you argument that all things are God? Or that all non-God things are caused by God? That all non-God things being caused by God is equivalent to those things being parts of God?

What’s going on here?
I am arguing that source of all cause is God according to your system of belief. Things/beings therefore cannot be source of any cause if they are separate from God otherwise we are dealing with Pantheism.
I have a printing press. I print a $20 bill and give it to you. Are now you unable to spend it, give it away, or otherwise use it? You ultimately had no way of having $20 without me giving it with you. I am the source of that $20. Anything you do with that $20 and whatever happens with it down the cause and effect chain is dependent on me having printed it and giving it to you.

Or, let’s frame it a different way. The money you have in your pocket is only currency so long as it’s accepted as currency. That acceptance of it as currency is the only reason you have what can be considered currency. It is the cause of you having money and not just meaningless slips of paper. Are you therefore unable to spend it, give it away, invest it, etc…?
 
I will make it easier for you, because your argument is still incoherent.

Now the definition of Pantheism is:
Everything is God

Apparently you don’t realise it, but this is the actual conclusion you’re trying to prove. So you have two terms ready for you, everything being the minor term, and God being the major term. All you need to do is posit a middle term which connects the two extremes in the conclusion. Or perhaps come up with even more terms to form a series of demonstrative arguments (compound syllogism) which eventually leads to the conclusion:

Everything is God
So you don’t agree that premise (1) and (2) are real premises? I cannot really help it because I think that the final argument is correct.
 
I am helping you make your argument more coherent. Your current conclusion is:

Pantheism is God. In other words, everything is God is God.

The only correct and coherent premise you’ve posited is that God is the cause of causes.
 
Last edited:
@STT We’ve discussed God’s knowledge relative to reality in multiple topics. Can you please explain to me what you mean by God’s foreknowledge?
 
To insert perhaps a different direction into the thread: Pantheism can’t be true, because change is real.

Saying “illusion” won’t help your cause. Even if you limit all reality to a mental state, mental states still change. Your participation in this thread, thought to thought, expresses it so.

Now change is just the actualization of a potential state of affairs. If precipitation changes from rain to snow, it is only because the rain had potential to do so. But in order for this potential to become actualized, there must be another reality that indeed does the actualizing. (In this case, air temperature, among other things).

But not EVERY thing can be merely potential, for then nothing could be explained. At all. For, as we have seen, change requires actualization – but from something that is already actualized prior to it.

The result is a reality that is fully actual, and therefore distinct from all other realities that ultimately depend on this ultimate, fully actual reality.

So the fully actual reality, also called “unmoved mover,” is distinct from all potential realities that receive actualization. God is distinct from contingent realities. The Creator is distinct from creation.
 
Last edited:
No. It’s not. An illusion is not non-being, for one. And if there is a thing it has being.
Ok. Can we divide things into real and illusion? I know that you think that illusion is a mental construct. To me that is not a being but a thing. To you it is a being.
I have a printing press. I print a $20 bill and give it to you. Are now you unable to spend it, give it away, or otherwise use it? You ultimately had no way of having $20 without me giving it with you. I am the source of that $20. Anything you do with that $20 and whatever happens with it down the cause and effect chain is dependent on me having printed it and giving it to you.

Or, let’s frame it a different way. The money you have in your pocket is only currency so long as it’s accepted as currency. That acceptance of it as currency is the only reason you have what can be considered currency. It is the cause of you having money and not just meaningless slips of paper. Are you therefore unable to spend it, give it away, invest it, etc…?
You think that God allows my decision to happen by sustaining me. I think that is impossible knowing the fact that very existence of me depends on God. Any motion which seemingly caused by me has originally caused by God since I am sustained by God. Think of a sheet and a coin on top of it. You move the sheet and the coin moves. Which one originally cause the motion of the coin? You. I cannot even support my existence. How I could cause the existence of other thing? This is my argument, plain and simple. Do you have an argument in favor of what you think?
 
God is not only pure actuality, but He is absolutely simple. The proof of this is that God is the unconditioned reality:
  1. There Can Only Be Types of Existing Realities:
a. Conditioned Reality: Any reality (human, plant, animal, wood, etc.) that depends on something else for its existence. For example, a cat depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms, etc. This dependence is simultaneous at any moment the conditioned reality exists.

b. Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “God”.
  1. Logical Proof that at least one Unconditioned Reality exists:
a. Some conditioned reality exists (i.e. cats, animals, trees, humans, wind, water, etc. as shown by science)

b. Any conditioned reality (R1) always depends upon another reality (R2) in order to exist (per definition of conditioned reality)

c. Any conditioned reality, by definition, must either depend upon:

a finite number of conditioned realities only
or an infinite number of conditioned realities only
or a finite number of conditioned realities + at least one unconditioned reality
d1. A conditioned reality cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned realities. If there is a linear series of conditioned realities, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing prior to it, the whole linear chain ceases to exist. Therefore a linear series of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite series of conditioned realities could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which violates the definition of a conditioned reality.

d2. Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite chain either. A very large series of one million conditioned realities cannot exist, neither can a series of one billion, and so on and so forth. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding one (million, billion, trillion, etc.) to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, therefore the entire infinite chain of conditioned realities would never have its conditions fulfilled.

d3. Since any model made up entirely of conditioned realities can never have their conditions fulfilled, it therefore follows that all conditioned realities must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological chain) with an unconditioned reality.

e. Therefore, an unconditioned reality exists.
  1. Proof that any Unconditioned Reality is Absolutely Simple:
a. Anything that is composed of parts is caused and conditioned by those parts.

b. Therefore, any unconditioned reality is absolutely simple by definition because it cannot be composed of any parts.

This of course, proves that God cannot be identical to His creation.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Wesrock:
No. It’s not. An illusion is not non-being, for one. And if there is a thing it has being.
Ok. Can we divide things into real and illusion? I know that you think that illusion is a mental construct. To me that is not a being but a thing. To you it is a being.
Being is just a term that means a thing that exists. I am a being. That molecule is a being. That atom is a being. It doesn’t mean that the thing is conscious or intelligent. The term can also be used in the sense of “that oxygen atom has being.”

As stated previously, I don’t think the term “illusion” is appropriate for metaphysical discussion. We can refer to different manner of reality. There is God as a necessary reality. There are contingent realities (things like us, plants, animals, non-living things). There are mental realities (which are dependent upon contingent beings to exist).
40.png
Wesrock:
I have a printing press. I print a $20 bill and give it to you. Are now you unable to spend it, give it away, or otherwise use it? You ultimately had no way of having $20 without me giving it with you. I am the source of that $20. Anything you do with that $20 and whatever happens with it down the cause and effect chain is dependent on me having printed it and giving it to you.

Or, let’s frame it a different way. The money you have in your pocket is only currency so long as it’s accepted as currency. That acceptance of it as currency is the only reason you have what can be considered currency. It is the cause of you having money and not just meaningless slips of paper. Are you therefore unable to spend it, give it away, invest it, etc…?
You think that God allows my decision to happen by sustaining me. I think that is impossible knowing the fact that very existence of me depends on God. Any motion which seemingly caused by me has originally caused by God since I am sustained by God. Think of a sheet and a coin on top of it. You move the sheet and the coin moves. Which one originally cause the motion of the coin? You. I cannot even support my existence. How I could cause the existence of other thing? This is my argument, plain and simple. Do you have an argument in favor of what you think?
It is true that God is the First Principle of all things, even human choices. However, God does not move you in the manner a sheet moves a coin on it. The coin’s movement is based entirely on principles external to itself. Whereas yours is based on your intrinsic principle according to your nature, which is real and not non-real because it is made real by God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top